MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296539509

Aging in Place: Accessible, Rent-Geared-To-Income Housing for Unattached Older Women: Phase I - Report Series # 11

2008· article· en· W2296539509 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mary Jane Carroll

Bibliographic record

VenueSOURCE Sheridan's Institutional Repository (Sheridan College) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeries (stratigraphy)Aging in placePhase (matter)Labour economicsEconomicsEconomic growthBusinessDemographic economicsGerontologyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This qualitative study has been structured to give a voice to an often forgotten population within social housing, namely unattached older adult women. To date, limited research has been conducted with this group. Canadian housing studies have traditionally focused on the needs of the frail elderly and the affluent elderly. However, current and projected demographics of Canadians, aged 65 to 84, indicate that the greatest number of “well older adults” is unattached women living on fixed incomes in subsidized housing. With little attention paid to this group, measures to improve quality of life for low income single women as they age in place are speculative at best. Through the co-operation of CityHousing Hamilton, and the Sheridan Elder Research Centre (SERC), this 3 stage qualitative study seeks to identify some of the needs of these women. Phase 1 results will inform a pilot project to retrofit existing apartments in 3 of CityHousing Hamilton’s buildings, each built in the 1970s and each within the urban environment. The pilot project will be followed by practical ongoing retrofitting solutions to be provided for use by the city. Phase 1, which began in January of 2005, is complete. Phases 2 and 3 are scheduled for completion by the end of 2007.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSOURCE Sheridan's Institutional Repository (Sheridan College)Same topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207